I think I’ll pass on the Gospel according to Baptists/Evangelicals and stick with scripture and what was passed on to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
My children have received this FREE gift of God’s Grace. They didn’t have to wait for me or a pastor to assess their faith. They didn’t have to respond to an altar call. They didn’t have to recite a “sinners prayer”. All they had to do was receive God’s free gift and allow God to sprinkle clean water on them, to cleanse them, to put a new heart in them and a new spirit in them, to turn their heart of stone into one of flesh, to put His Spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes.
Wk your using water in literal sense when in the OT it the symbol for The HG The Ot is clear on this.
there is no scripture support for infant baptism. You should stick with scripture and how the apostles did it not what The church fathers etc....
In scripture they had to Confess Christ before they were baptism They always in scripture held to this and held back baptism until they did in scripture.
And baptism is one of the means by which we receive the Holy Spirit through God’s grace by the work of Jesus Christ.
That's just a flat out bunch of boloney. Period. There aren't many ways to
get the Holy Spirit, and baptism is not "one of those ways"...
*** "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38
*** “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
*** “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,” 1 Pt 3:21
Receiving the Holy Spirit … cleansing from sin … salvation … and you call scripture a “bunch of baloney”? I don’t know how it can be any clearer from scripture!
The uncontested teachings of the Early Church …. Over 1500 years with no evidence whatsoever of a contrary view …. Infant baptism practiced by nearly all Christians …
I think I’ll pass on the Gospel according to Baptists/Evangelicals and stick with scripture and what was passed on to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
My children have received this FREE gift of God’s Grace. They didn’t have to wait for me or a pastor to assess their faith. They didn’t have to respond to an altar call. They didn’t have to recite a “sinners prayer”. All they had to do was receive God’s free gift and allow God to sprinkle clean water on them, to cleanse them, to put a new heart in them and a new spirit in them, to turn their heart of stone into one of flesh, to put His Spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes.
You can call this “baloney” if you’d like but I will stick with scripture, the uncontested teachings of the Early Church, and the living witness of my children.
as for no evidence to disprove infant baptism wow what a claim but there is evidence against you.
The evidence is scripture and how baptism was done by the apostles.
They ALWAYS baptism a person AFTER they confess Christ? Can a baby confess Christ?
remember to the apostles this is a requirement for geting baptism.
Here's the bottom line, I asked you in the beginning if you were here to unite His church, or divide it. You said unite...YET YOU CONTINUE TO EXERT ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITY. The only "true and VISIBLE church". In direct conflict/opposition to scripture of Paul rebuking "I am of Cephas, I am of Apollo, I am of Paul..."
You continue to uphold "I am of Peter"...and the church fathers.
FINE! I AM OF CHRIST!
Rome has no authority. It's all make believe, lie, deception. Peter was not the "Bishop of Rome" therefore your entire basis of "SOLE Apostolic Succession" falls.
So, let's get to the foundation: where's Peter, as the first Pope in Rome?
WHERE'S THE PROOF? PRESENT IT.
Ripley’s – How can you assert that I’m here to divide? There is division among the brethren regarding the understanding of baptism. Rather than relegating this part of the Great Commission to “non-essential” I’m hoping maybe we can come to agreement. Unity rather than division.
How am I asserting Roman Catholic Authority? Regenerative baptism is not unique to the RCC. It is held also by the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants. So don’t side track the issue with your “I’m of Peter, I’m of Paul …..” line. We are all of Jesus Christ and most of us are of what his Apostles taught .... regenerative baptism.
I’ve already shown that Peter was the earthly leader of the Church. I provided TONS of scripture from both the N.T. and the O.T.. I showed it in it’s Jewish context as the “Al-bayit”. I provided references to Protestant biblical scholars who believe this too. And I’ve provided early church writings as well. You keep asking me to “prove it” but what more evidence do you need?????
apostles did not teach regenerative baptism.
in acts it was ask what must I do to be saved? believe in the lord jesus and you will be saved.
you should also notice they were baptism the same Hour so they were not into a situation that baptism was not possible.
you should also Note peter own words in acts 15 I believe by the grace of God we are saved just Like them.
You need to understand The Historial point of acts 2:38
1. peter did not yet understand salvation is for gentiles.
2. acts 2:38 is the same mission of John baptism to get them ready to bring them into messiah And this event was for jews ONLY Note because peter did not believe gentiles can be saved yet.
Now in acts 15 just like them refers to The gentiles and how they got saved by mere believing The gospel.
peter made The final note on how one was saved by The grace of God.
My children have received this FREE gift of God’s Grace. They didn’t have to wait for me or a pastor to assess their faith. They didn’t have to respond to an altar call. They didn’t have to recite a “sinners prayer”. All they had to do was receive God’s free gift and allow God to sprinkle clean water on them, to cleanse them, to put a new heart in them and a new spirit in them, to turn their heart of stone into one of flesh, to put His Spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes.
Wk can you answer This question? why some children when they grow up go the wrong way even when they were infant baptism when a baby?
if they receive God grace a new spirit a new nature when they were baptism a baby but go the wrong way when old why is that?
now that I posting all i want for Now I just make a quick view on what i want answer.
acts 2:38 How can someone hold to this being a universal teaching when at the time peter did not belive gentiles could be saved?
How do you explain John baptism and acts 2:38 they have the same mission to me to bring the jews out of The OT and into the NT.
john baptism was only for jews and yet at the same time peter also believe the same.
how you explain 1 peter 3:21 Not to remove filth of the flesh? is this literal dirt then how if peter told us not to remove filth of the flesh? literal dirt will be removed so if anyone taken to me literal dirt would that not go against what peter is saying?
how do you explain acts 15 when peter said By The grace of God we are saved even as They.
what is peter talking about acts 2:38? No at that point He did not understand salvation of grace or event gentiles being saved is possible.
So is he saying Now we are saved even as They meaning Today we have to just believe like the gentiles did while peter was preaching?
I suggest that you (RCC/Oneness) are robbing the power of the cross when NUANCING, and PLAYING WITH GOD'S WORD, to say that *WE* dictate to God how, and where, and when His grace flows.
It's not both/and, it is cause and effect. Not OUR cause and HIS effect, we don't control God. It HIS cause and OUR effect:
John 3:8 (still that conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus)- The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it's going. That's how it is with everyone who has been born from the Spirit."
We don't CALL/DIRECT the Wind with our baptism.
Paul says (1 Cor 15:1-11)- Now, brothers, I must remind you of the Good News which I proclaimed to you, and which you received, and on which you have taken your stand, and by which you are being saved - provided you keep holding fast to the message I proclaimed to you. For if you don't, your trust will have been in vain. For among the first things I passed on to you was what I also received, namely this: the Messiah died for our sins, in accordance with what the Tanakh says; and he was buried; and he was raised on the third day, in accordance with what the Tanakh says; and he was seen by Kefa, then by the Twelve; and afterwards he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, though some have died. Later he was seen by Ya'akov, then by all the emissaries; and last of all he was seen by me, even though I was born at the wrong time. For I am the least of all the emissaries, unfit to be called an emissary, because I persecuted the Messianic Community of God. But by God's grace I am what I am, and his grace towards me was not in vain; on the contrary, I have worked harder than all of them, although it was not I but the grace of God with me. Anyhow, whether I or they, this is what we proclaim, and this is what you believed.
-emphasis mine-
It's the Gospel/Good News that saves. It's all about Christ and trusting that He is Who He claimed to be. Not what we do, but what He did. No mention of baptism, although I do imagine that that is "among the first things I told you"...but not included in "GOOD NEWS ...BY WHICH YOU ARE BEING SAVED" that Paul summarizes here. (See how 1 Cor opens: with a scolding!...that goes on for several chapters.)
wk~
WHAT YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE IS WHAT YOU ASK OF THAT FORMER NUN YOU QUESTION:
WHERE IS IT RECORDED THAT PETER WAS THE BISHOP OF ROME?
Scripture says: Jerusalem, Joppa, and Paul writing to Rome...listing names, none of them PETER...paul going to Rome, no mention of Peter going there...Paul finally imprisoned in Rome...NO PETER. Peter to the circumcision (Jews), Paul to the uncircumsision (gentiles)....scripture seems to contradict your claim.
So, quit dodging and provide the kind of *evidence* YOU DEMAND OF OTHERS.
Here's what I say. Aren't we supposed to interpret the Bible as a whole? Not just one scripture here and there? Doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16 say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"? Does it say anything about traditions to study? No, on the contrary, it says Mark 7:7-9 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." So my question is even if we can't agree on what being baptized by WATER and spirit is, then tell me why would Paul clearly (can't get any clearer) say that he was glad that he didn't baptize many and that he wasn't sent to baptize but to preach?
Also, Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosphy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Seems to me everything that I keep reading about tradition is bad...and that's all you (wk) keep referring to.
Ripley’s said: Once again this view of baptism is in oppostition to the many, many, MANY verses that talk about faith/belief/trust only.
I say: No it’s in unity with the ENTIRE bible. Don’t think in terms of “either/or” rather than “both/and”. Don’t think in terms of instantaneous finite point in time but rather being on a pilgrimage to the new and perfected Jerusalem. And finally, show me in scripture where eternal salvation is in faith ALONE, or belief ALONE, or trust ALONE. Show me this either/or brand of Christianity in scripture.
Sugarman said: “When peter said acts 2:38 he did not believe salvation was for gentiles yet. acts 2:38 was only for JEWS to bring them out of t he OT and into The NT.”
I say: Jesus told all of the Apostles to go out and make disciple of ALL nations, baptizing them…. So how can you say Peter didn’t know salvation was for the Gentiles yet? Furthermore, by your assertion, you are saying that in order for a Jew to enter into the New Covenant, he must be baptized. This is contrary to the arguments you’ve made in the past about the meaning of baptism.
Sugarman said: “there is no scripture support for infant baptism. You should stick with scripture and how the apostles did it not what The church fathers etc....”
I say: It is you who should stick with scripture. When “entire households” were baptized, where is an age distinction made? Scripture links baptism and circumcision and Jews were circumcised on the 8th day. The early church even discussed if baptism should be done on the 8th day. Show me in scripture where anyone was ever denied baptism because of age. Rejection of infant baptism is a subset of Protestant tradition that denies the Grace of God. Infant baptism is an entry into God’s covenant family by God’s grace alone, with the realization that the baptized infant will continue to grow in God’s grace through the teachings of the family into which the infant was born. For those old enough and capable of either accepting or rejecting the Gospel, baptism comes after accepting.
Sugarman said: “Wk can you answer This question? why some children when they grow up go the wrong way even when they were infant baptism when a baby? if they receive God grace a new spirit a new nature when they were baptism a baby but go the wrong way when old why is that?”
I say: Simple – Like the prodigal son, they exercise their free will and give up their inheritance. God offers the graces we need to abide in him but he does not force us to accept them. That would not be true love. I know (and I’m sure you do to) many people who have “invited Jesus Christ into their heart” and have since fallen away. The same can happen to a person baptized as an infant. That is why one of the necessities of infant baptism is believing parents and a church community in which the child will be raised. Infant baptism must be accompanied by the expectation that the community will raise the child in faith.
(cont …)